Cargando…

The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment

BACKGROUND: Retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging biomarker for neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis (MS). In order to become validated as an outcome measure in multicenter studies, reliable quality control (QC) criteria with high inter-rater agreement are required. METHODS/PRI...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tewarie, Prejaas, Balk, Lisanne, Costello, Fiona, Green, Ari, Martin, Roland, Schippling, Sven, Petzold, Axel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22536333
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034823
_version_ 1782230711448633344
author Tewarie, Prejaas
Balk, Lisanne
Costello, Fiona
Green, Ari
Martin, Roland
Schippling, Sven
Petzold, Axel
author_facet Tewarie, Prejaas
Balk, Lisanne
Costello, Fiona
Green, Ari
Martin, Roland
Schippling, Sven
Petzold, Axel
author_sort Tewarie, Prejaas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging biomarker for neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis (MS). In order to become validated as an outcome measure in multicenter studies, reliable quality control (QC) criteria with high inter-rater agreement are required. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A prospective multicentre study on developing consensus QC criteria for retinal OCT in MS: (1) a literature review on OCT QC criteria; (2) application of these QC criteria to a training set of 101 retinal OCT scans from patients with MS; (3) kappa statistics for inter-rater agreement; (4) identification reasons for inter-rater disagreement; (5) development of new consensus QC criteria; (6) testing of the new QC criteria on the training set and (7) prospective validation on a new set of 159 OCT scans from patients with MS. The inter-rater agreement for acceptable scans among OCT readers (n = 3) was moderate (kappa 0·45) based on the non-validated QC criteria which were entirely based on the ophthalmological literature. A new set of QC criteria was developed based on recognition of: (O) obvious problems, (S) poor signal strength, (C) centration of scan, (A) algorithm failure, (R) retinal pathology other than MS related, (I) illumination and (B) beam placement. Adhering to these OSCAR-IB QC criteria increased the inter-rater agreement to kappa from moderate to substantial (0.61 training set and 0.61 prospective validation). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first validated consensus QC criteria for retinal OCT reading in MS. The high inter-rater agreement suggests the OSCAR-IB QC criteria to be considered in the context of multicentre studies and trials in MS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3334941
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33349412012-04-25 The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment Tewarie, Prejaas Balk, Lisanne Costello, Fiona Green, Ari Martin, Roland Schippling, Sven Petzold, Axel PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging biomarker for neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis (MS). In order to become validated as an outcome measure in multicenter studies, reliable quality control (QC) criteria with high inter-rater agreement are required. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A prospective multicentre study on developing consensus QC criteria for retinal OCT in MS: (1) a literature review on OCT QC criteria; (2) application of these QC criteria to a training set of 101 retinal OCT scans from patients with MS; (3) kappa statistics for inter-rater agreement; (4) identification reasons for inter-rater disagreement; (5) development of new consensus QC criteria; (6) testing of the new QC criteria on the training set and (7) prospective validation on a new set of 159 OCT scans from patients with MS. The inter-rater agreement for acceptable scans among OCT readers (n = 3) was moderate (kappa 0·45) based on the non-validated QC criteria which were entirely based on the ophthalmological literature. A new set of QC criteria was developed based on recognition of: (O) obvious problems, (S) poor signal strength, (C) centration of scan, (A) algorithm failure, (R) retinal pathology other than MS related, (I) illumination and (B) beam placement. Adhering to these OSCAR-IB QC criteria increased the inter-rater agreement to kappa from moderate to substantial (0.61 training set and 0.61 prospective validation). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first validated consensus QC criteria for retinal OCT reading in MS. The high inter-rater agreement suggests the OSCAR-IB QC criteria to be considered in the context of multicentre studies and trials in MS. Public Library of Science 2012-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3334941/ /pubmed/22536333 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034823 Text en Tewarie et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tewarie, Prejaas
Balk, Lisanne
Costello, Fiona
Green, Ari
Martin, Roland
Schippling, Sven
Petzold, Axel
The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment
title The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment
title_full The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment
title_fullStr The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment
title_full_unstemmed The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment
title_short The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality Assessment
title_sort oscar-ib consensus criteria for retinal oct quality assessment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22536333
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034823
work_keys_str_mv AT tewarieprejaas theoscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT balklisanne theoscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT costellofiona theoscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT greenari theoscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT martinroland theoscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT schipplingsven theoscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT petzoldaxel theoscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT tewarieprejaas oscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT balklisanne oscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT costellofiona oscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT greenari oscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT martinroland oscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT schipplingsven oscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment
AT petzoldaxel oscaribconsensuscriteriaforretinaloctqualityassessment